PLAYER57832 wrote:It is relevant when people start trotting out there are x numbers of abortions and pointing to statistics on why women have abortions, without taking the above into account.

In the US, there is no real data on this prior to 12 weeks. Any data collected, including the study to which you referred, is based on interviews and other imperfect data. Data from other countries may nor may not reflect the same information or have other biases (the study you referenced went into some detail on this, but also referenced individual studies or indicated when information was not available fully).

So, dismissing it is not honest.

Also, in some states there IS legislation that attempts to determine "fault" for some miscarriages, such as if drugs or alchohol are involved.

Who is trotting that out? The website I quoted did not trot that out (for example).

I'm sure there are biases in any and all information; I cannot determine those biases since I didn't do the study. Neither can you, unless you performed the study.

There is legislation (and Law & Order episodes) regarding fault for miscarriages if drugs and alcohol are involved. What is your problem with that legislation? Furthermore, if miscarriages were, in fact, included in the study I provided, the inclusion of miscarriages would heavily bias the data in favor of "fetus health" or "mother's health."

PLAYER57832 wrote:Like I said, you consider women too stupid or immoral to make these decisions. You apparently are far superior and better able to make these decisions. That would be bad enough, but you do it without truly looking at the data, as I noted above in regards to miscarriages.

It becomes VERY relevant when, at the point abortions are legal, the chance of term success is at best, 30-50%%, and most studies show the true rate to be less than that if you count from the time a pregnancy is determined. (as opposed to 12 weeks).

I don't think any of those things consider, for the 100th time, I'm pro-choice. For the 97th time, my issue with you is not your views on abortion (i.e. being pro-choice). My issue with you is the way you go about justifying your pro-choice stance. I have no problem with, for example, my own decision to be pro-choice or BBS's decision to be pro-choice or Symmetry's decision to be pro-choice. I don't think any women are too stupid or immoral to make the decision of what to do with something that it is attached to them. I think it is a right to privacy issue and that's that. What I don't do, and what you're doing, is making it seem like these women don't actually have a choice. They do have a choice. It's their right to make the choice they make and I'm not going to argue with them about it. I will, however, continue to argue with you about the underlying reasons for making that choice since you remain completely ignorant despite the presentation of data to the contrary.

PLAYER57832 wrote:MY Position is plain and simply that the best way to prevent abortions is to make birth control widely available and to educate adolescents well in sex education. That, alone won’t stop either teen pregnancies or abortions because some people just have different morals.

Are you passing judgment on the morals of people now? I thought you were accusing me of doing that. I think the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies (not abortions) is to educate since birth control is, in fact, widely available (go down to your local pharmacy or supermarket) and to make sure the right to choose stays legal.

Player is pro choiceI'm pro choicePlayer justifies being pro choice (for some reason) as "women have abortions to save themselves" and "most abortions are miscarriages."My response to that is that any data I've seen states that only about 2% to 5% of abortions are to save the mother and that miscarriages are not at issue with the legality or illegality of abortion. So her justification is incredibly flawed.

Basically, Player feels the need to justify her pro-choice stance. I do not feel the need. I suspect that Player is Christian and her religion requires her to make up things to justify being pro-choice. Although I'm Catholic, I can differentiate between laws and my own religious morals (as can many other Catholics).

Player is pro choiceI'm pro choicePlayer justifies being pro choice (for some reason) as "women have abortions to save themselves" and "most abortions are miscarriages."My response to that is that any data I've seen states that only about 2% to 5% of abortions are to save the mother and that miscarriages are not at issue with the legality or illegality of abortion. So her justification is incredibly flawed.

Basically, Player feels the need to justify her pro-choice stance. I do not feel the need. I suspect that Player is Christian and her religion requires her to make up things to justify being pro-choice. Although I'm Catholic, I can differentiate between laws and my own religious morals (as can many other Catholics).

I think she, like many people have problems with the way the debate is phrased. You yourself have had to clarify your meaning about "mothers' health". She is quite correct that miscarriage is abortion. It is not irrelevant to the debate at all. It has as definitionasl impact, deals with some of the contempt that anti-abortionists have toward medical terms and practice, and, of course, there's the worrying trend of that lobby towards the criminalization of women who have a miscarriage.

the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein

Player is pro choiceI'm pro choicePlayer justifies being pro choice (for some reason) as "women have abortions to save themselves" and "most abortions are miscarriages."My response to that is that any data I've seen states that only about 2% to 5% of abortions are to save the mother and that miscarriages are not at issue with the legality or illegality of abortion. So her justification is incredibly flawed.

Basically, Player feels the need to justify her pro-choice stance. I do not feel the need. I suspect that Player is Christian and her religion requires her to make up things to justify being pro-choice. Although I'm Catholic, I can differentiate between laws and my own religious morals (as can many other Catholics).

I think she, like many people have problems with the way the debate is phrased. You yourself have had to clarify your meaning about "mothers' health". She is quite correct that miscarriage is abortion. It is not irrelevant to the debate at all. It has as definitionasl impact, deals with some of the contempt that anti-abortionists have toward medical terms and practice, and, of course, there's the worrying trend of that lobby towards the criminalization of women who have a miscarriage.

Player is pro choiceI'm pro choicePlayer justifies being pro choice (for some reason) as "women have abortions to save themselves" and "most abortions are miscarriages."My response to that is that any data I've seen states that only about 2% to 5% of abortions are to save the mother and that miscarriages are not at issue with the legality or illegality of abortion. So her justification is incredibly flawed.

Basically, Player feels the need to justify her pro-choice stance. I do not feel the need. I suspect that Player is Christian and her religion requires her to make up things to justify being pro-choice. Although I'm Catholic, I can differentiate between laws and my own religious morals (as can many other Catholics).

I think she, like many people have problems with the way the debate is phrased. You yourself have had to clarify your meaning about "mothers' health". She is quite correct that miscarriage is abortion. It is not irrelevant to the debate at all. It has as definitionasl impact, deals with some of the contempt that anti-abortionists have toward medical terms and practice, and, of course, there's the worrying trend of that lobby towards the criminalization of women who have a miscarriage.

PLAYER57832 wrote:It is relevant when people start trotting out there are x numbers of abortions and pointing to statistics on why women have abortions, without taking the above into account.

In the US, there is no real data on this prior to 12 weeks. Any data collected, including the study to which you referred, is based on interviews and other imperfect data. Data from other countries may nor may not reflect the same information or have other biases (the study you referenced went into some detail on this, but also referenced individual studies or indicated when information was not available fully).

So, dismissing it is not honest.

Also, in some states there IS legislation that attempts to determine "fault" for some miscarriages, such as if drugs or alchohol are involved.

Who is trotting that out? The website I quoted did not trot that out (for example)

You did. You began by insisting that this was "new" information to me, though I have actually cited that article here previously... and to refute other things you posted that were absolutely incorrect.

thegreekdog wrote:I'm sure there are biases in any and all information; I cannot determine those biases since I didn't do the study. Neither can you, unless you performed the study.

Wrong. A legitimate scientific report goes to great lengths to describe bias, inherent errors, etc. Only when the methodology is well known and accepted is that by-passed, but even then a citation is usually provided. Having that information puts the report in context.In fact, those details are probably THE key differences between a legitimate scientific report and just a casual explanation.

thegreekdog wrote:There is legislation (and Law & Order episodes) regarding fault for miscarriages if drugs and alcohol are involved. What is your problem with that legislation?

A topic of its own. Funny how you insert that into a discussion of a paper, rather than elsewhere. I will talk about it, but not right now.

thegreekdog wrote:Furthermore, if miscarriages were, in fact, included in the study I provided, the inclusion of miscarriages would heavily bias the data in favor of "fetus health" or "mother's health."

I am not disputing the data; I am disputing your claims about it. I have already shown that you did not bother to truly look at the data. The difference between 2 and 8%, for example, is pretty significant.

Read the study for yourself. It talks about the bias in obtaining the information, exactly what I said.. that these estimates are not, as you wish to claim firm numbers, but estimates based on women’s reports. It also talks about why such studies have been so limited. I posted several articles on this the last time this came up, including a couple of analysis of this report.

MY issue is not really with the report.. it delineates what it does and does not say pretty clearly, it is with your claims of what the report says and what the data means. I already explained that.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Like I said, you consider women too stupid or immoral to make these decisions. You apparently are far superior and better able to make these decisions. That would be bad enough, but you do it without truly looking at the data, as I noted above in regards to miscarriages.

It becomes VERY relevant when, at the point abortions are legal, the chance of term success is at best, 30-50%%, and most studies show the true rate to be less than that if you count from the time a pregnancy is determined. (as opposed to 12 weeks).

I don't think any of those things consider, for the 100th time, I'm pro-choice. For the 97th time, my issue with you is not your views on abortion (i.e. being pro-choice). My issue with you is the way you go about justifying your pro-choice stance.

Except you have misrepresented everything I have said in the extreme. And, you have also come very much in favor of, for example the Roman Catholic church’s right to demand that employers, not the users of insurance get to decide what is covered, even though BOTH parties pay for it, etc, etc.

I don’t use the “pro choice” or “pro life” labels, because they are political attempts to sway people. Abortion is not really a “choice”, like getting a fruit drink, any more than someone cutting off their leg or arm are “just a choice”. Both “choices” needs to be legal for when necessary. The “pro life” movement is not about all life, they don’t consider the mother’s life, sometimes not at all and sometimes only in the most extreme cases. They, for example, dismiss the idea that a woman wanting to have children in the future might be a legitimate reason for an abortion, but medically , it can be very legitimate, not to mention”socially” (if a woman can finish college, she can get a job that will support here children, and is more likely to meet a man who is also educated, who will help with the rearing financially and likely otherwise, etc). AND, many of those claiming that title are the same ones opposing universal healthcare and minimum wage laws. You cannot separate those issues, because they are very much tied.

I understand that you say you accept that, but then you come like a battle ax with claims that have little to do with what I have said and a lot to do with so-called “right to life”

thegreekdog wrote:I have no problem with, for example, my own decision to be pro-choice or BBS's decision to be pro-choice or Symmetry's decision to be pro-choice. I don't think any women are too stupid or immoral to make the decision of what to do with something that it is attached to them. I think it is a right to privacy issue and that's that. What I don't do, and what you're doing, is making it seem like these women don't actually have a choice. They do have a choice. It's their right to make the choice they make and I'm not going to argue with them about it. I will, however, continue to argue with you about the underlying reasons for making that choice since you remain completely ignorant despite the presentation of data to the contrary.

OK, back up. EVERYTHING is a choice. Even, frankly, when a mother’s life is at risk, there is still a choice. The Roman Catholic Church is quite clear that they think the “choice” a woman should make in that case is just to die, to forget about her life, her family and any future children she might have. I know you disagree with the church on that stance, BUT.. their argument IS its “just a choice”. So yeah, my refutation is “no, its not just a choice”. And, the arguments of large swaths of the anti-legal abortion movement use that as their primary focus. “It’s a choice…. And those making that choice obviously don’t know what we know, so we every right to blast them with the most graphic and lurid photos, do whatever it takes to get these women to stop beings so stupid.Never mind that most of their data is just wrong, and the photos they put forward are often from court cases and of late term horror stories, not legitimate, trained practitioners. Ironically, those photos illustrate why we need LEGAL and safe abortions, because that is what happens when its not kept safe and legal.

THAT is my stance. And that is why I say, quite clearly, “no, it is not JUST a choice”. If you want to claim it is “a choice”, then fine… but its ALL a choice. You want to just draw a line and say “mother’s life at immediate risk.. not a choice, mother’s life at future risk/her health at risk/her ability to raise the child well at risk/etc – those are all choices”. I say that argument is absolutely stupid, and yes, does ignore a lot.

You have sometimes argued the Roman Catholic position, though I do understand that you take exception with some of what they say, when it comes to mandates for other people, but MY problem and the problem with anyone not Roman Catholic, is that the Roman Catholic Church, by taking these positions outside its own parishes and into the political arena, has forfeited its right to have a legitimate political say. Either they are a religion and placing mandates on parishioners, but NOT to those who are not parishioners, or they are a political entity that can advocate politically for whatever they want… and face the disagreements. This includes putting pressure on Roman Catholic politicians to make laws that adhere to Roman Catholic doctrine. When they do that, as they have in recent years, they are no longer acting as a faith, but are acting the bully to tell other people how to live their lives, and that is just wrong.

thegreekdog wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:MY Position is plain and simply that the best way to prevent abortions is to make birth control widely available and to educate adolescents well in sex education. That, alone won’t stop either teen pregnancies or abortions because some people just have different morals.

Are you passing judgment on the morals of people now? I thought you were accusing me of doing that. I think the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies (not abortions) is to educate since birth control is, in fact, widely available (go down to your local pharmacy or supermarket) and to make sure the right to choose stays legal.

Huh.. .there you go again. Now you are basically taking the exact position I am, and claiming it as some kind of refutation to my “judgmental” position.

Also, you are misinformed. Sex education is being curtailed nationwide. There is a new rise in teen pregnancies directly correlating to a switch from science-based, full education to a narrow “don’t do this” type of approach. I was frankly appalled at what passes for “sex education” in my son’s school. Yet, my husband and I went to a Parent’s meeting on this and there were all of 7 parents… one a school board member, there to listen. There were 6 presenters and 7 parents! What spurred the meeting was seventh graders bragging in the cafeteria about their sexual experiences.. in enough detail that there was more than just smoke. I know some of those parents and the kids, both. One is what I will call a “card carrying Roman Catholic” – who dresses her girls in clothes that erm… just barely meet the dress code. (she is also the parent who informed me that she doesn’t want her kids wearing bike helmets because it “messes with their hair”). Another goes to a “faith” church, that thinks sex education is “leading kids to sin”. Then we have the family, with older kids, who invited their daughter’s boyfriend to live with them, while she was just 16. Both that girl and her sister’s kids are now “in the system” being shuffled from place to place. Those are just 3 examples of a very long list. At some point, a parent who thinks its just fine for their 16 year old to get pregnant is about freedom of how we raise our kids, BUT.. as a society, knowing that many people like that exist, we have a responsibility to at least make sure that the 16 year old has as much information as possible. In that case, just telling them about birth control, of course, won’t do it. They need to know something of what it takes to raise a kid (ALL kids do). It can serve as a “deterrent”, but it also just plain gives them better knowledge if they do wind up being a parent. AND, they need knowledge about education, its potential and how to access it, including basic job training programs if that is what they need. I am not going to bore you with more of the litany, but you get the drift.

Without knowledge, choices become so limited, there just are no choices.

Making decisions requires facts and knowledge. Not having that is a surer way to eliminate choice than changing any law. Similarly, birth control is NOT widely available to all everywhere. Note that part of how this discussion began was Nightstrike and your insistence that employers could just eliminate birth control coverage from their policies without harm to women. Even when these things are not yet curtailed, the threat is very much out there.

To all of you who have not yet read Freakonomics the book, read it. It talks about how abortion has helped lower crime rates since the 1990's I believe. I myself am against abortion but it is true that because many women in poor living conditions choose abortion and that if they do give birth to those children, they are very likely to be part of gangs and crime. Therefore, because of abortion, crime rate has been lowered.

PLAYER57832 wrote:You did. You began by insisting that this was "new" information to me, though I have actually cited that article here previously... and to refute other things you posted that were absolutely incorrect.

What are you talking about? I'm asking whether you think that I believe that women who have miscarriages should be arrested. I don't think that. I literally do not know anyone who thinks that. Furthermore, the legislation you are referring to would prosecute women who have a miscarriage because they drink or whatever.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Wrong. A legitimate scientific report goes to great lengths to describe bias, inherent errors, etc. Only when the methodology is well known and accepted is that by-passed, but even then a citation is usually provided. Having that information puts the report in context.In fact, those details are probably THE key differences between a legitimate scientific report and just a casual explanation.

What are you talking about? The study I quoted is what I'm talking about.

PLAYER57832 wrote:MY issue is not really with the report.. it delineates what it does and does not say pretty clearly, it is with your claims of what the report says and what the data means. I already explained that.

Yeah, you didn't do a good job explaining it. That's what this discussion is about. The question is why do women have abortions. I've given you my answer which includes data. You've given me your answer which includes no data. Find some data.

PLAYER57832 wrote:I don’t use the “pro choice” or “pro life” labels, because they are political attempts to sway people. Abortion is not really a “choice”, like getting a fruit drink, any more than someone cutting off their leg or arm are “just a choice”. Both “choices” needs to be legal for when necessary. The “pro life” movement is not about all life, they don’t consider the mother’s life, sometimes not at all and sometimes only in the most extreme cases. They, for example, dismiss the idea that a woman wanting to have children in the future might be a legitimate reason for an abortion, but medically , it can be very legitimate, not to mention”socially” (if a woman can finish college, she can get a job that will support here children, and is more likely to meet a man who is also educated, who will help with the rearing financially and likely otherwise, etc). AND, many of those claiming that title are the same ones opposing universal healthcare and minimum wage laws. You cannot separate those issues, because they are very much tied.

You just used both the pro-choice and the pro-life labels, supporting one in the manner in which I have a problem and denigrating the other. Having an abortion is a choice; it may not be a "getting a fruit drink" choice; I would never suggest that. All the reasons you delineate are fine, legal reasons for a woman to have an abortion. Why do you need to use some other justification for abortion than those?

PLAYER57832 wrote:The Roman Catholic Church is quite clear that they think the “choice” a woman should make in that case is just to die, to forget about her life, her family and any future children she might have.

Actually, that's not true. According to the Catholic Church, as long as the medical professional seriously attempts to also save the fetus/baby's life, it is fine.

PLAYER57832 wrote:BUT.. their argument IS its “just a choice”. So yeah, my refutation is “no, its not just a choice”. And, the arguments of large swaths of the anti-legal abortion movement use that as their primary focus. “It’s a choice…. And those making that choice obviously don’t know what we know, so we every right to blast them with the most graphic and lurid photos, do whatever it takes to get these women to stop beings so stupid.

And that's why it's important to at least understand what the Catholic Church's position is and why your argument is inaccurate. In the case of a choice between having an abortion and not having an abortion (where the woman's life is not in danger), I don't have a problem with someone making a moral judgment against the woman. Legal judgement? No. Moral judgment? Okay.

ben1212 wrote:To all of you who have not yet read Freakonomics the book, read it. It talks about how abortion has helped lower crime rates since the 1990's I believe. I myself am against abortion but it is true that because many women in poor living conditions choose abortion and that if they do give birth to those children, they are very likely to be part of gangs and crime. Therefore, because of abortion, crime rate has been lowered.